Child Abuse Sanctioned by Christians?

Well, if you’re a parent who’s been given a copy of “To Train Up a Child” by a well-meaning friend/family-member/whatever and told “It’s Christian, so it’s ok,” then that would seem to be the case.

Let me clear the air really quickly on something: I’m not a Christian. Don’t confuse this to think I’m not spiritual; I am. But I’m not a Christian. Now, having said that, I need to continue with a couple of caveats. First of all, I was for a 10-year-period in my life a practicing Christian, a Deacon’s wife, a Sunday School Teacher. I’ve read the Bible. I know it pretty well. Secondly? I’ve known Christians who would absolutely shudder at the “advice” doled out in this book.

Next, I need to tell you, I’ve never considered writing anything in this blogspot that would address Child Abuse; there are more than enough people out there crying out for it to stop that I never felt my voice would add any discernible anything to the fight. However, after reading http://www.examiner.com/article/another-couple-found-guilty-of-murder-for-parenting-by-to-train-up-a-child, I started doing some research. First, I went to Amazon.com and looked up the book. Read the excerpts, then scrolled down through the reviews. Of the 2,662 reviews, 919 of them are 5-star. The rest? 1-star. Not hard to figure out some good press was done on that book when it first published. Then I started surfing the web, and what I found was that, for years now people have been crying out about this book (like this site: http://whynottrainachild.com/2010/04/20/quotes-from-ttuac/).

I’d like to examine two scriptures from the Bible. I read these when I was a practicing Christian, then I studied them. I study everything, really. The first is Proverbs 22:6, and is the basis of the title for this monstrous book: “Train up a child in the way he should go, and when he is old he will not depart from it.” (NKJV)

This scripture seems simple on the outset — we want to train up our children to be good, right? But it’s oh-so-much-more complex than that! For instance, do we want to train up our children to be critical thinkers? Do we wish to train them up to have the ability to discern, for themselves, the difference between right and wrong? Do we want to train them up to celebrate their compassionate, giving, and sharing natures? Or do we want to train them up to instantly obey anyone “stronger/tougher” than they are? Do we wish to remove from them any ability to make decisions for themselves? Do we wish to teach them meek servility, at the cost of themselves? See? It’s not so simple. Because if we wish to teach them compassion, we have to give them compassion. If we wish to teach them to make choices for themselves, we have to enable them to learn from the failures of incorrect choices, without censure. If we want to show them the difference between right and wrong, we have to let them be wrong, and learn to deal with the outcomes of being wrong. The two different methods of “training up a child” are polar opposites, diametrically opposed to each other.

The next scripture goes hand-in-hand with what the authors of this book purport — and I’d bet you it’s quoted in their book, too. I won’t spend money on this trash, I won’t pay people to continue teaching this drek, so I can only go on quotes I’ve seen, and logical assumptions. The scripture I’m thinking of is Proverbs 13:24: “Whoever spares the rod hates their children, but the one who loves their children is careful to discipline them.” (NKJV). It’s commonly paraphrased as “Spare the rod spoil the child.” You know, when I was a Sunday School teacher, I read something on this that — yep! Caused me to do yet more research. Do you realize the “rod” referred to in this passage is a shepherd’s rod? That’s right — the comparison was being made of a parent as a shepherd, and the rod mentioned is the tool shepherds use to gently guide their stray sheep back into the flock. I remember reading this explanation of this passage, and the author asked “What shepherd in his right mind would ever take the rod and beat his sheep?” We are admonished to discipline our children, in order to be loving parents. However, people have gone too far into equating “discipline” with “punishment.” Simple concept: you do something wrong, there’s a price to pay. My taking your television away from you for a night because you lied to me is discipline. My stripping you down and beating you until you submit to me because you lied to me is abuse. There is a difference, folk.

I can only think of the Christians I know, and have known, shuddering to have their name linked to this outrage. Kind of like thinking all Christians are like the parishioners of Westboro Baptist Church.

I promise, I won’t go on and on about this; I may never revisit this topic. But whoever you are, get the word out. If you’re a parent, and you’re a Christian, go to the Bible. There are so many examples of God’s, and of Christ’s, love. Of Their compassion. Of Their grace. Let grace be the guide for you as a parent, not this drivel that purports to churn out “healthy, well-adjusted children.”

Advertisements

Food Chains

Who doesn’t know what a food chain is? We’re taught in elementary school a very simplified version of food chains, but the truth isn’t really beyond what an elementary school child could assimilate.

Food chains have, at their bottom, species of animals that eat no other species and ends, at the top, with a species that is eaten by no other species. So considering, for instance, domesticated cattle – they’re the bottom of their food chain. They eat no other animal species. Humans, by contrast, are considered the top of every food chain because it’s put forth that we eat all, but are eaten by none. Let’s disregard the tales of tigers, leopards, lions, crocodiles and alligators, sharks, bears, and so on. We like to pat ourselves on the back and declare ourselves so much bigger, better, meaner, and brighter than the animals around us; thus, we declare ourselves the top of the food chain.

The question becomes, what does it matter? If you consider the science of the question, invariably you have to state, we are just another link in the food chain. But because we have opposable thumbs and the ability to lay waste to the entire biological kingdom of this planet, we are capable of preparing for defense against any of the predators natural to our world, and further we are capable of killing any animal, any component, really, of the biological kingdom of this planet, including ourselves – because of these facts, we’re the Apex Predator.

Tracie McMillan wrote an incredibly insightful, and painfully harsh, book called “The American Way of Eating.” In the book she describes her curiosity about how our food goes from the field to the table, and the investigation she undertook to learn this. She worked in the fields of California gathering produce; she worked in Wal Mart in the produce section; she worked in food prep in Applebee’s. She literally followed food from the field to the tables in this book, and what she learned was astounding. For the purposes of this blog, I want to focus on two items she brought to light:

  • Logistics drive grocery chains, not offerings of food
  • The “food desert” of Detroit – and what lead to it

Once upon a time, we were hunter-gatherers. With the advent of knowledge relating to producing crops, we began settling in towns, later in cities. Until roughly the 1700s, the amount of arable land equaled the needs of humans to feed themselves; in other words, we weren’t having a major impact on the lands around us, and were sustaining our own growth on locally available arable land.

Our population began increasing dramatically, as indicated below:

  • 1350 – world population around 370 million, following Black Death
  • 1825 – world population reaches one billion
  • 1927 – world population reaches two billion
  • 1960 – world population reaches three billion
  • 1980 – world population around 4.2 billion
  • 2000 – world population around 6 billion
  • 2020 – estimated world population around 8 billion

In 33 years, between 1927 and 1960, the world population grew by one billion people. One billion people in 33 years. We’re showing population increase trends, now, of about two billion people every 20 years.

The question this raises is, if there’s not more land being produced, how are we feeding all these people? The answer comes in a couple of creative ways:

  • GMOs, or Genetically Modified Organisms, have paved the way to greater crop production per acre of land. These organisms do everything from producing hardier crops to making them more resistant to the weather, insects and pests, and so on
  • Growth hormones and promoters, in the form of steroids and antibiotics, are used to increase production of livestock for grocery shelves
  • Grocery chains which are heavily invested in infrastructure – transportation and power grids, to name a couple – to ensure their products reach the most people

In essence, specifically in the United States of America, people can live pretty much anywhere and find a way to purchase nearly any foods. Tropical fruit? No problem! It’s been shipped up and is waiting for you to buy it! Want buffalo? Just hop on the internet and you’re sure to find someone nearby selling it! A simple search took me to www.thebuffaloguys.com, which turned in results of 13 retailers in Tennessee, eight in Connecticut, none in California and  Oregon, and 30 in Ohio. However, fear not, you can place your orders online!

What all this means is that we don’t really have any idea what it takes to get the food on our plates, which we consume with abandon and glee. Our farms are huge industries selling crops and livestock for big-buck companies who are heavily invested in infrastructure which leads us to … politics. Lobbying. A person in Georgia is likely to pay roughly the same price for chicken breasts as a person in California, because the grocery chains have ensured pricing by cutting out smaller markets. And that means that if you don’t make enough money, you’re left to hit the cheap shit on the shelves in the interior of the stores. Susan Powter, back in the ‘90s, urged people to stay away from boxed, packaged foods. There’s been debate and controversy over whether she was serious in her urgings to get people to eat healthier, or if she was just in it for the buck, but her message was a good one regardless. Want to know how grocery stores determine what goes where? Check this out – http://read.bi/njIBhK. The bottom line is that a great portion of our population can only afford the cheap, fast foods, prepackaged and canned and filled with who-knows-what. Their cost determinants include not only the cash price of items, but also the time investment in obtaining and preparing foods.

And this means increased obesity, higher-than-good-for-you sodium consumption, and escalated medical costs associated with food-related illnesses. We won’t even get into the controversy over whether genetically modified or antibiotic-infused foods are good for you. More and more of our society is being plagued with one form or another of gluten intolerance; interesting, isn’t it, that in the last 50 years our wheat use has expanded to become one of the primary fillers in many foods? I mean, who’d think you’d have wheat in hot dogs, right? Yeah, check in to “cereal binders.” Or “extenders.” Both cereal-based, both containing wheat. There are some natural products (latex, anyone?) which generate allergies with use – it’s possible wheat is one of them. But wheat is so cheap to produce, and it certainly costs less than the food it’s being used to “fill” or “extend!” Using fillers like this, producers are able to get more bang for their buck, thus earning them more of the almighty dollar.

Now, let’s look at Detroit. Between heavy governmental mismanagement, auto unions that refused to budge on their demands, taxes that kept rising as the population kept decreasing, we now have a city that is, literally, in ruins (http://content.time.com/time/photogallery/0,29307,1882089,00.html has a fascinating and saddening slideshow about this). Detroit has also become what’s called a food desert. What’s a food desert? I’m glad you asked! A food desert is essentially an area where healthy, sustaining food is difficult to obtain, and even more difficult for people without access to automobiles.

Tracie McMillan outlined some of the problems facing Detroit, and that led me to a somewhat intensive research program online, learning about some of the issues facing Detroiters. Here’s a summation of what I found:

  • Grocery chains have determined that more stores in the heavily-hit and poorest parts of Detroit would be financially unfeasible; the cost-to-profit ratio is too high for them to wish to place their stores
    • Much of Detroit is inner-city roads, inhibiting easy access for transportation
    • Abandoned auto factories and homes are unsellable in many instances, as their “ownership” is currently in question, which makes space for placing supermarkets or chain groceries at a premium
    • The city of Detroit has obtained the title on many of these properties via tax defaults as their owners abandoned them and fled the city
  • Fringe stores such as convenience stores, liquor stores, party stores, dollar stores, and other such retailers have enabled themselves to accept food stamps by offering a comparatively small selection of canned and prepackaged foods high in salt, fat and sugar – this boosts their overall sales
    • Fringe stores and fast food stores proliferate, they’re very nearly on every corner
    • Food costs of food items in fringe stores are higher than their counterparts found in supermarkets and grocery chains, as the fringe stores buy in lower bulk
    • Foods in these stores can sit on the shelves forever, or until they’re sold, regardless of perishable dates
    • Detroit is one of the most expensive places, anywhere, to own and operate a vehicle, leaving nearly one-fifth of the entire population on foot
    • Detroit has not, since they dismantled their railcar system in 1956, had a good, fully functioning public transit system

In short, it’s nearly impossible to find good food for an amount most people can afford in Detroit. But the residents of the city are taking matters into their own hands. On abandoned automobile lots, many residents began creating gardens, planted in raised beds to keep them off the floors where toxic fluids had spilled and collected. Many of these gardens are and were begun as cooperative efforts; you work, you benefit. But Detroiters involved in these efforts also sold some of their produce to local residents. Naturally the government got involved; because these foods weren’t being taxed, the government responded by passing laws that no new structures could be built on these old factory floors.

It goes on. In essence, Detroiters have responded to their crisis of low-cost access to healthy foods by dedicating themselves to becoming a giant urban garden. Many projects are underway to kick this off, including but not limited to initiatives by Greening of Detroit, Detroit Black Community Food Security Network, the Detroit Eastern Market, and others. Michigan State University has even donated money, payable over a three-year time period, for a “food system innovation program that would promote economic development, land recovery, and food security.” (http://www.urbangardensweb.com/2013/01/19/will-detroit-get-worlds-largest-urban-farm/)

What is the point of all this rambling? Simple.

We’re killing ourselves, in yet another way, so that big companies can make a buck. We’re willfully ignoring food-production practices that have, in some cases, been proven harmful, all to grow food faster and provide more – more that grocery chains can “corner the market” on, by managing the transportation and logistics of food distribution. And let’s not even talk about the people involved, the ones out in the fields picking the foods, and how their diets are, by and large, less nutritious and more costly for them. We’ve been shown by the city of Detroit, if not others, that urbanization of food production can work, and can benefit the community.

In the rambling above, I’m making the argument that, in our food production and consumption, grocery chains are the Apex Predators. And I’m saying that we need to wise up. We need to be seeking local alternatives to shopping in these large chains. Initiatives are under way in many communities to “vote with the fork,” or to only purchase foods from local garden cooperatives. That’s a start. But we need to be tracing back the politics behind these mammoth institutions, and find ways to dismantle them. Mom & Pop shops are largely a nostalgic item from a past era; yet these shops were once a cornerstone of communities. They were the places where Joe Average got to hang out a bit with Jane Anybody, chatting about the weather, the family, so on and so on. They were the places where youngsters began learning about responsibility, being hired on to sweep, or stock shelves, or make deliveries. In short, it is my surmise that they were the parts of the communities that made the communities. In addition? We ate better!

Folk, there’s a lot of information out there. Do the research for yourself. Understand what you’re putting on your fork, and thereby into your mouth. Open your mouth, where you feel it necessary, to invite change. I say growth can relearn a pattern from an earlier era. Growth can embrace something that worked, giving over convenience for a stronger community. Really. You need to check into this.

So you say you want a revolution …

My darling husband felt that the topic of “Revolution” was a natural follow-up to my first post, since Jeremy Paxson was able to prompt Russell Brand to admit that yes, he does indeed wish for a revolution. However, is “Revolution” necessarily a bad thing? My thinks on this will be spelled out, below.

My oh-so-great-and-wonderful guide for word meaning, http://www.merriamwebster.com, has the following to say about Revolution:

Revolution

  1. The usually violent attempt by many people to end the rule of one government and start a new one
  2. A sudden, extreme, or complete change in the way people live, work, etc
  3. The action of moving around something in a path that is similar to a circle

In the context Mr. Paxson seemed to be using, revolution would entail definition number one. However, I believe that the term Russell Brand would apply to it would fall under definition number 2. I’ll study, talk, and think about both of these, for the sake of argument and debate, of course.

First of all – Our country was founded as an entity separate from the English monarchy via a revolution. This is ancient history, right? The American Revolution was, in fact, violent. The attempt was successful; we made victory for the English so very costly that they chose to accede victory to us, rather than continue pouring money into a recalcitrant group of upstarts.

Secondly, current events and recent history show that we’re very much dissatisfied, or at least a large portion of our population is. For instance, politicall pundits believe “Massive riots, huge crime waves expected in many US cities” (http://www.presstv.ir/detail/2013/10/22/330721/massive-riots-expected-in-many-us-cities/). Riots. Here? In our nation? Actually, for such a young nation, we’ve had a lot. A blog posted by forensiccolleges.net states “…it looks like all you need is the right combination of unhappy people, unfortunate circumstances, and an anger at society or the system at large that has been allowed to simmer to the boiling point.” While many of the riots, especially in the latter half of the 20th century, were race-related, they were often also related to the handling of specific incidents by our public servants, and the governments to which they belong. For instance, the Rodney King riots got out of hand not because a black man was mistreated, but because a black man was recorded being brutally beaten by local police officers. It wasn’t simply a case of race tension, it was members of a local government behaving in an inhuman and inhumane manner. Today, we have financial tension as our major catalyst, but this tension is growing, not shrinking. I believe a large current of anger is currently growing toward “the system.” I fear we are well past the simmering stage and hurriedly working our way toward boiling.

Based partially on current life and standards of living, listed below, I say we’re on the edge of a revolution. The events, specifically, I’m thinking of, are:

  1. Arizona is but one state where citizens have made noises about seceding from the United States (which in fact the 14th Amendment, ratified after the Civil War, made illegal)
  2. Between illegal immigrants, and our ever-growing lower class, we have a class disparity that is enough to topple both conventional thinking, and conventional ways of doing business – in short, if you court “popular opinion,” the lower-class, lesser-educated people will have more votes to speak for their opinions than can be generated among the higher-class, higher educated people currently residing in our country, simply by virtue of the numbers each can bring to the board
  3. Government cuts of benefits as terms for “increased” benefits expire – food stamps, anyone?
  4. We have all but lost our middle class – to outsourcing, to layoffs, to businesses going out of business because they don’t have people to purchase their products – and this means the core of our economic system is all-but-lost
  5. As jobs are lost, as people are giving up on retaining or regaining what had been their comfort zone, their way of life, depression and frustration are becoming endemic, which affects how these people manage themselves and the relationships with those around them
  6. People are seeking to leave our country – not because of a desire to “be” somewhere else, so much as a desire to “be away” from the United States

Now – caveat. These are observations I’m making, based on reading “Trending” reports. None of them are scientific; if you ask me to prove my case, I’m going to have to go back and research and find where I read this, and this can go back a couple of years. Some of it I gained in Soc 101, some of it I gained in news reports, some of it I gained by talking with my neighbors. Some of it I’ve gained from personal experience. So understand and accept that there is no scientific basis, but there damned sure is a real-world basis for each of the assertions I’m making.

The bottom line is that, at least in the United States, we have a very large pool of people who are becoming disenfranchised. We have an even larger pool of people who are poorly-educated, for the most part, and happily take out whatever the government gives to them. Sadly, however, we forget that what the government gives, the government can also take away. So let’s talk about a couple of scenarios, ok?

  • Scenario One
    Joe Average, who was a mid-level manager for an automobile production plant, was an average and unassuming employee. He went to work every day, punched his card, did his time, and helped keep things running smoothly. One day, due to Union deliberations and the burgeoning export of jobs, he lost his job. His plant shut down. Joe had no college degree – he’d brought himself up from a factory worker, he’d done his time, he’d paid his dues, and had elevated himself to comfortable middle-class status without having to take time off from work to go to school. Yet, when he lost his job, all of a sudden the ability to gain like jobs was largely taken from him. Why? He had no degree, to begin with. The industry he’d been a part of had shrunk, within his region, and trying to move required he have a job to go to, but he had no degree … so over the course of a couple of months to a year, he lost his home, and his ability to support his family. In desperation, during these times, he took multiple lower-paying jobs, he scraped by with little to no sleep, he moved his family into a reduced state of living, he liquidated any savings he might have been able to generate … and he watched his viability as a human being, as a man, a husband, a father, a provider, slowly diminish.
  • Scenario Two
    Jeffrey R. Youth was born in the ‘hood. He was one of five children birthed to his mother; his mother knew a couple of the childrens’ “baby-daddies” but didn’t know which one was Jeffrey’s. Jeffrey’s mom didn’t push him to succeed, she rather taught him how to hoodwink the government, to get money for free. Her attention for him, among the rest of her five children, was minimal, and she relied instead on handouts brought to the home by successive baby-daddies and by government handou. Babydaddy #1 brings the TV, Babydaddy #3 brings the alcohol for entertainment … and so on. If Jeffrey’s mother gave Jeffrey any indication that he could succeed, it was through physical sports – there was his way to bring himself (and Mom!) out of poverty. Jeffrey’s youth was spent being exposed to gangbangers, drug pushers, and other violent and “unsavory” types. In high school, just before Jeffrey quit, he was injured during Physical Education – blew out his knee. Jeffrey’s dreams of pro sports died, and Jeffrey had no direction in which to go.

Do both these scenarios seem as though I’m making them up? I’m not. Both are based on relationships I had with people. Both are true, both are real, and both don’t even begin to touch the surface of what these people experienced. What options are there, for them? Aside from whatever the government spurs itself to dole out – so each member of said government can keep his or her kushy job – what hope do these two believe exists?

Many people lead parochial lives. Their knowledge base consists solely of what they’re exposed to in their immediate vicinity. For those who were born and raised amidst affluence, they know only affluence. All their friends, their social contacts, their day-to-day interactions revolve around the lifestyle of the affluent. Conversely, for those born and raised amid poverty, all they know is poverty – unless, of course, they’re able to raise themelves out of it. My point is that it is impossible for a person born and raised in affluence to see, experience, and understand the issues facing those born and raised in poverty, and vice verse. However, the people who are supposed to be representing the middle and lower classes are – c’mon, you know where I’m going – affluent. The policies they enact don’t actually speak to the needs of their constituents, they speak to the affluent person’s desire to retain power and position. Therefore they are more often in the nature of “Here, take this and shut up – oh, and vote for me! See? I’m working for you!”

I say, again, revolution is on its way. However, we, each of us, have the ability to determine which path it will take. Will it be the violent, bloody affair that established our nation? Or will it be an intellectual renaissance, sweeping the nation at large and urging the implementation of change that can help us all grow? Folk, I’m here to tell you, we do hold the ability to shape that in our hands.

How, you ask? How can I, how can one person, shape this change? You know, I’ve noticed a very interesting trend. Put bluntly, “the squeaky wheel gets the oil.” The noisy ones are the ones that everyone rushes to placate. They’re the ones whose votes are bought, in order to keep them quiet, to keep them in their place. They’re the ones who hold out their hands and scream “Gimme! Mine! I deserve it!” Meanwhile, back at the farm, we have the people who look around with their eyes open, who see that this state can not continue. But they’re weighed down with repression, and depression, and a sense of “Well, I’m only one person, what can I do?” So they bury themselves in their daily lives, and hope that things will magically get better, and they become the quiet ones, those whose votes don’t matter, aren’t sought out.

We can change this. We can begin to speak up. We can write letters to our representatives, our congressmen, our president, even. We can say, “I’ve had enough. I’m awake now, and I want change.” We can become the noisy ones, working to implement and institute change that benefits us, and benefits our neighbors, and benefits those around us.

I don’t have all the answers; hell, sometimes I don’t even know the right questions to ask. But there are ideas out there – ideas we should be courting. Oh, like for instance, the idea that all politicians up on Capitol Hill should be held to the same laws, regulations, etc as the rest of us. Ideas such as tax breaks, rather than penalties, for corporations who have all their facilites in the States, to encourage the regrowth of jobs in the middle class. Ideas such as community farming, of all things, to get rid of the logistical power-houses that our current grocery chains have become. Ideas such as clean fuel, which costs less. There are so many ideas out there. I say we have the right, we have the duty, and we have the privilege of seeking to try to bring about the best of these ideas. I say we can go against the financial power-houses that are our current lobbyists. I say that to do otherwise is to accept a bloody revolution, rather than one that can bring about positive change.

And I say that willfully remaining blind to all that’s going on around us is agreeing to a more bloody revolution.